Christofferson v. Christofferson, 32

• Decision Date: 29 June 1961
• Docket Number: No. 32,32
• Citation: 363 Mich. 421,109 N.W.2d 848
• Parties: Angeline T. CHRISTOFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Russell P. CHRISTOFFERSON, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 848

109 N.W.2d 848

363 Mich. 421

Angeline T. CHRISTOFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Russell P. CHRISTOFFERSON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 32.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 29, 1961.

Santini & Jacobs, Ironwood, for plaintiff and appellee.

Doyle & Doyle, Menominee, for defendant and appellant.

Before the Entire Bench.

CARR, Justice.

The parties to this divorce suit were married on October 5, 1946. They lived together in Stambaugh, Iron County, Michigan, until June 13, 1959, on which date they separated. shortly thereafter plaintiff filed her bill of complaint charging defendant with extreme and repeated cruelty and asking that a decree enter granting her a limited divorce from bed and board. Counsel for defendant entered an appearance in his behalf but no answer to the bill of complaint was filed.

On the hearing of the cause plaintiff offered proofs in support of the charges made by her in the bill of complaint and also with reference to the property interests of the parties. Defendant was called for cross-examination by her counsel and in effect admitted the more serious charges made against him. At the time the proofs were taken on June 9, 1960, plaintiff was 38 years of age and defendant was 35. So far as the record before us discloses, each was in good health. During the marriage plaintiff did not work outside the home, although previously she had been employed as a dental receptionist. She testified that except as the necessity of caring for the three children of the parties interfered she was capable of doing the work that she had performed prior to the marriage. The children at the time of hearing were in the custody of the plaintiff and were, respectively, 6, 9, and 12 years of age.

The trial judge entered a decree granting plaintiff an absolute divorce and giving to her the custody of the three children until they respectively reached the age of 18 years, of until the further order of the court. Defendant was given the right of reasonable visitation at all times, subject to the limitation that such right should not interfere with the health, welfare, or education of such children. Defendant was ordered to pay plaintiff by way of alimony the sum of $50 per month and also to pay a like amount for the support of each child until the age of 18 years was attained thereby. In addition to the monthly payments required to be made defendant was ordered to carry adequate medical and hospitalization insurance for the three children, to continue to pay the premiums on life insurance policies thereof, and to continue in

No complaint is made on behalf of defendant benefit of the minor children.

No complainti is made on behalf of defendant and appellant with reference to the above mentioned provisions of the decree. It is, however, insisted that the property division as made by the trial court was inequitable. The home of the parties in the village of Stambaugh, owned by them as tenants by the entirety, was given to the wife together with the household furnishings and furniture therein. The testimony indicates that the value of the home was approximately $8,500, and that the personal property therein was of a value between $2,000 and $3,000. Plaintiff was also given the joint bank account of the parties in the sum of approximately $650. Defendant, who was engaged in an automobile repair business in which he earned an annual net income between $3,800 and $3,900, was awarded a 1957 Oldsmobile, a 1947 Ford truck and other business property used in connection with the business, a certificate in the Investor's Syndicate of America, Inc., a boat, and his personal belongings in his possession at the time of the entering of the decree. The exact value at time of trial of the certificate referred to is not shown. Apparently it was purchased on an installment basis from the earnings of defendant. The proofs indicate that the sum of $190.50 had been so paid annually for approximately nine years.

On behalf of appellant it is insisted that since the home had been paid for by the earnings of defendant it should have been awarded to him, perhaps with a right of occupancy by plaintiff and the children until the youngest reached the age of 18 years, thus insuring a home for them during the period of dependency of the youngest child. On behalf of appellee it is claimed that she had approximately $1,000 at the time of the marriage. Whether such amount was used for the expenses of the family, or otherwise, does not appear. It is not in dispute that the property acquired, including the home, was the result of defendant's labor. As above stated, he is required by the decree to pay $50 per month for the support of each of the three children until the age of 18 years is reached, or until the further order of the court, and a like amount by way of alimony for plaintiff. Such payments must come primarily from the results of his labor. In view of such payments he was properly given rights of visitation of the children. Testifying in her own behalf on the trial plaintiff indicated that she had received an offer for the home of $8,500. She further testified as follows:

'Q. Mrs....